Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog
Thanks for the link, none of my searches came up with that. Can't find any mention of rubber gloves or goggles. Did not bother looking up lab coats.
|
Seriously?
OK then.... try this: go to
this page, and search for the relevant terms therein.
I suggest using Ctrl+f and searching using your browser's find function, rather than reading the entire page, or merely skimming it with your own eyes.
When you do that, you will find a section marked "(4) Personal Protective Equipment." Directly beneath that title you will find a sub-paragraph that reads as follows:
Quote:
|
(A) Provision. Where occupational exposure remains after institution of engineering and work practice controls, the employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, appropriate personal protective equipment such as, but not limited to, gloves, gowns, laboratory coats, face shields or masks and eye protection, and mouthpieces, resuscitation bags, pocket masks, or other ventilation devices. Personal protective equipment will be considered "appropriate" only if it does not permit blood or OPIM to pass through to or reach the employee's work clothes, street clothes, undergarments, skin, eyes, mouth, or other mucous membranes under normal conditions of use and for the duration of time which the protective equipment will be used. Note : For fire fighters, these requirements are in addition to those specified in Sections 3401-3411, and are intended to be consistent with those requirements.
|
I might be reading all of this and the other relevant regulations incorrectly (and if so, I hope pornlaw or another of the attorneys who frequent this board will correct me), but as I read the above, the real question might be whether condom use alone as an "institution of engineering and work practice control" leaves any remaining "occupational exposure" that would trigger the requirement of using the other barrier protection listed in that sub-paragraph. For that matter, the answer could vary depending on the manner of production at hand; I could see some BDSM shoots involving more and different exposure to blood than would a scene that involves only vaginal/oral/anal sex, for example.
It's quite possible, of course, for the legislature to write in specific exceptions to §5193 that limit the scope of barrier protection that must be used (they have already done so with respect to the construction industry, after all), but to my knowledge, no such exceptions exist with respect to the adult industry.
If you're still not satisfied that it's a reasonable interpretation to say that barrier protection beyond condoms is required under the letter of §5193, and that since Measure B invokes §5193 specifically, receiving a permit under the law might be contingent upon such barrier use if Measure B passes.... well,
ask your own damn lawyer. ;-)
Maybe he/she will have a different take that you can share with everybody here.